Moorview Developments & ors v First Active PLC & ors [2012] IESC 22 (23 February 2012)

Moorview Developments & ors v First Active PLC & ors [2012] IESC 22 (23 February 2012)

Orders for security for costs are granted because the appellants are insolvent, there are no clear arguable grounds of appeal, and no special circumstances exist to refuse security. The appeals do not raise points of law of exceptional public importance and the inability to pay is not attributable to the respondents' actions.

Citation
[2012] IESC 22
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Moorview Developments Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: Salthill Properties Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: Valebrook Developments Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: Springside Properties Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: Drake S. C. Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: Malldro S. C. Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: The Poppintree Mall Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: Blondon Properties Limited; Respondent/defendant: First Active PLC; Respondent/defendant: Ray Jackson; Respondent/defendant: Bernard Duffy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs in Supreme Court
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Insolvency, Appeals, Non Suit, Res Judicata, Fraud Allegations, Rectification, Corporate Plaintiffs
Civil Procedure Banking Law Company Law Security for Costs Insolvency Appeals Non Suit Res Judicata +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moorview Developments Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Salthill Properties Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Valebrook Developments Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Springside Properties Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Drake S. C. Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Malldro S. C. Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

The Poppintree Mall Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Blondon Properties Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

First Active PLC

Respondent/defendant

Ray Jackson

Respondent/defendant

Bernard Duffy

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs in Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against impecunious corporate appellants and individual appellant in appeals arising from complex banking litigation
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances exist to refuse security for costs, including claims of public importance or that impecuniosity was caused by respondents

Ratio Decidendi

Orders for security for costs are granted because the appellants are insolvent, there are no clear arguable grounds of appeal, and no special circumstances exist to refuse security. The appeals do not raise points of law of exceptional public importance and the inability to pay is not attributable to the respondents' actions.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Appellants to provide security for costs as per notices of motion
  • Ancillary orders to be determined after hearing parties